Re: ReSpec and RDFa support

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Gregg Kellogg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Shane McCarron <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms.  This is pretty straightforward.  Question: is there any value in continuing to support the OLD terms as well?  In other words, if conf.doRDFa is set to something (schema.org <http://schema.org/>) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms.  Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).
> 
> I think using schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms is probably most useful to people now. I seem to recall that DanBri had created equivalents for FOAF and DC terms, or that someone else had contributed them. Of course, there’s not a 1-1 correspondence.
> 
> Schema.org <http://schema.org/> doesn’t have an equivalent for the bibo vocabulary, though; this is used for creating the TOC, IIRC.

I take it back, there are terms defined in http://bib.schema.org that will do nicely; they use the same schema: namespace, fortunately.

Gregg

> Gregg
> 
>> -- 
>> Shane McCarron
>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>